Posted by DanielS on Mon, 02 Jun 2014 16:29 | #

WN’s are doing their utmost to make German descended peoples feel comfortable with themselves and to unburden them of undue guilt (what, after all, does anyone alive have to do with World War Two?); all of us want for Europeans to work in cooperation and yet we remain saddled with a contingent of revisionists looking to turn around and lay guilt trips on Allied descendents, going into all sorts of largely unnecessary argumentation.

World War II is a history regarding which scarcely anyone alive can be said to have responsibility, let alone guilt, whatever the details of the case.

As such, it does not bear high relevance to our existential warrant to survive as a people. In the days of the controlled media, prior to the Internet, it could have been said to legitimately be an issue occupying a burning, central place, in a time when the motives and deaths of Europeans during, prior, and after World War II were not given sufficient voice.

But now focus on details of holocostianity become more often than not an insidious distraction, a tedious issue –  a tedium that was handled and set aside deftly in a keen distinction that GW drew in the interview: the difference between the German motive to redeem the image of their people through World War Two revisionism in general and holocostianity revisionism in particular, versus the existential motive of the fourteen words. The two motives are different and not necessarily symbiotic, although it is argued (wrongly) by revisionists that they are in necessary alignment – when, in fact, holocaustianity revisionism is in conflict and largely counterproductive, particularly where given such a belabored focus. 

Still, those who will not let it be in history do afford an opportunity to attend to how philosophical lines may have been better drawn so that we might avoid fratricide and our ready portrayal as ex-nihlo evil, as Jews would like to smear those of us who recognize them as a group pattern hostile to European interests in our efforts to separate from them

One question asked by Robert in Arabia brings the matter that GW would care to tease apart into high relief.

“Why on earth should anyone give a damn about any bad things that happen to Jews?”

It is a bit like asking why would anyone care about keeping Africans slaves?

It is not necessarily that we are so kind, but ought to take the other into account for our sake, for the sake of mitigating the creation of legitimate resentment and motive for revenge on the part of the other.

The master slave relationship to the other sets in motion resentment and revenge, usually on the basis of hubris and false, non-qualitative comparison – it has a tendency to escalate … and even if Hitler correctly identified Jews as other, he did not anticipate the kind of reaction that he was setting in motion by his treatment of agentive others as slaves.

I have maintained that race, as ecological systemic classification, would occupy a place between Cartesian points of transcendent universalism and the empirical point within the individual, rather mediated in hermeneutic process – this is in large agreement with tanstaafl. One difference is that I would characterize this as relative, not merely relative, but relative in a relational sense of a morality within and between groups – a large correction is due in changing to the silver rule for out-groups, as opposed the golden rule and universalism. It is not subjective as opposed to universal (subjective would be the same Cartesian starting point). Nevertheless, Tan does well to articulate how race and nation occupy the Jewish prohibited middle ground. I would say that nations would be like the necessary compartments of the ecological ship, the class or the necessary qualitative parts of the systemic body of the race, the class.

However, to say that morality has no connection what-so-ever to what lies beyond race would be Cartesian as well, and to address this point seems to me to be one of the services that GW has enlisted Neil Vodavzny to attempt to provide.

………
I don’t appreciate the reverence of Hitler – it is a massive insult to so many –  he had impressive logical skills to be sure, but there were also glaring errors in his judgment and it is obvious that he could not be a figure that all Europeans could rally under –  obvious that he would create conflict. Look, I might be proud that Caesar could have the ability to defeat the Gauls, another one to take part of England, but why would I boast and defend his doing that? And how could I be surprised that this would build the resentment that would one day implode upon Rome? This is not the way to build a stable environment for your people, even in regard to people you want to be separate from.

There is another extreme, that is expressed in examples of taking things too far to the objectivist side, best man for the job (or our women), that perhaps we should talk and negotiate assiduously with jews and blacks and help them carve out homelands. That’s their problem. We owe separatism to ourselves, not to any pleading, commensurate reward, equal treatment or negotiation with blacks and jews, who should not have been allowed to impose upon us and into our environs to begin with.

On the other hand, I do see something in GW’s criticism, that is that while the Nazis might have importantly identified the Jews as other, they were not unique in this recognition and their response was ill conceived. Not only regarding the Jews, but also in relation to other Europeans – not only Slavs, but witness the attitude toward the English here. As if there could be no moral reason to oppose the Nazis, as if the Nazis were not so narrowly circumscribed in their moral outlook that the only moral good was the good for the Nazis.

I have proposed the silver rule as a reasonable way of dealing with the other,  it needs further refinement. I would disagree here with GW’s resolution to boil liberalism down to equality – this is what sets in motion the false comparison of master slave relation..and the bitter competition that ensues of not valuing, qualitative, ecological disbursement and incommensurate motives.

Nevertheless, I agree with GW that the Nazis position toward Jews and other Europeans was not commendable even if somehow understandable. And even as present day Germans should be unburdened of guilt, that the Nazis were not ex nihlo evil, to take the position that they were ex nihlo innocent can only spark rightful suspicion of the judgment of the theoretical progenitor.

I am really sick and tired of hearing that America and England were on the wrong side of the war. The truth is that Hitler drew the lines poorly and his philosophical underpinnings were very poor – catastrophic – predominantly responsible for leading to the ends that it did. By his own admission and in truth, the course of the war was taken through his initiative. The Allies probably should have pursued intervention in other ways but hindsight is 20/20.

The best way for Germans to handle the redemption of their honor is to point to the fact that they are a new, innocent generation, that previous generations had motives, were not acting out of a vacuum, but under great stress and inspiration counter to that stress. Matters may have been handled differently but there were pressures, threats that the Germans were responding to – over reacting you say, well probably, but there has also been an over punishment now, which is carrying on to us in the present generation as responsible for things that happened before we were born. Just or unjust, punishment has been served enough.

Before offering that argument, I would render the caveat: that while it is disingenuous to say that the Nazi regime were ex-nihlo evil, so too is it disingenuous to say that they were ex nihlo innocent, which incredibly, is the way some of their apologists speak – all that can and should do, is breed mistrust of those who attempt such purist arguments.

For those who want to debate the holocaust for the burning desire to redeem the reputation of Germany of that epoch, please forgive those of us who are not especially interested as we do have the pressing existential matter of the fourteen words to attend, and while we do not seek to burden you with guilt trips neither do we need guilt trips from you.

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 02 Jun 2014 16:36 | #

Clearly a number of Jews died, a lot of them in starving condition and many of those who lived were skeletal (yes, we know, “that is all Churchill and Roosevelt’s fault”). But seriously, whether it is called “the holocaust”, “the Shoah”, a genocidal attempt or not, at this point, so what? Legal and other penalties have been more than served and nobody alive is guilty. Even the numbers, when it gets to be over, say, a hundred thousand, to debate them only re-creates the creepy ghoulish stereotype of the bald, hunch-backed German before his harpsichord (Carolyn tried to turn this stereotype around, against me and Poles, but that one didn’t work) fiendishly fixated on inhumane details, and only contributes to the suspicion of a person who could be so detached from nobility as to commit such acts as have been charged.

Whatever the case, the better angle for Germans is to describe how things may have looked from their circumstances, that it was seen as a life and death struggle with the Jews and certainly the war could have turned out better. We have regrets for the results of the war, but it can only go so far when in fact, we had nothing to do with it. All we can do now is attempt to do better and not allow guilt trips to prevent us from defending ourselves as a people – we are perfectly warranted as such, as a people who really had nothing to do with events of WWII whether exaggerated or factual.

[…]

These deeds and motives were not ex-nihlo, quite to the contrary, there were circumstantial motivations.

I believe the term ‘holohoax’ to be tactless and counter-productive rhetoric for reasons similar to the non-nobility to which GW alludes – mocking the dead is not a good idea, generally speaking; nevertheless, “holocostianity” as disingenuous instrumentalization is a viable critique.

[…]

While Tan’s definition of morality corresponds in large measure with my view of it as a biological systemic affair, entailing accountability and ecology – human and otherwise – I believe it is better cast in relative terms – not hyper relative and without accountability though not subjective either ..that probably makes a difference. Lets not burden the Germans and the rest of us by circumscribing this in such Germanic terms nor at the other Cartesian end of ex nihlo good and evil.

If you are looking to create empathy for the Germans of that era or for anyone opposed to Jewish power and influence, the key is to focus on the question of why there is this malice for it, not how this, that or the other thing could not be true.

 Posted by Greg Johnson on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 19:52 | #

Daniel, GW, Tan, this was an excellent interview. Top marks all around. I am looking for interviewees for CC Radio podcasts. Please contact me at editor@counter-currents.com if you would like to carry on the conversation. I have never “gotten” GW or Daniel, and perhaps the best way to sort things out is just to interview them. RE the theme music: nice to know there is another Zappa fan in the WN world.

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:24 | #

Greg,

Thank you for the commendations….

the overture is big of you, especially since MR has a distinguished mean streak, which certainly applies to me no less than others. In service of this struggle of ours, your ability to rise above things is significant. It is not typical and your capacity in that regard is no less commendable than your scholarship. Thanks.

Note: regarding the music, it is John McgLaughlin and Mahavishnu Orchestra, “Between Nothingness and Eternity”, Live in Central Park, NYC, 1973. However, I have seen Zappa six times in concert.